Judgment SHASHANK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board against the decision of a learned Judge dated 13/12/2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 11789 of 2001: Jagdeo Singh V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board. One Jagdeo Singh, who had brought the writ petition, had joined the Bihar State Electricity Board on 21/12/1959 as Correspondence Clerk. Subsequently he was promoted as Junior Accounts Clerk in 1963 and thereafter as Accounts Assistant on 14/04/1976. He retired from service on 30/09/1998. Finding that his pension and post retirement dues were not being delivered he filed the writ petition. The fact that he had not been delivered the post retirement clues and his pension has been withheld, on this there is no issue on the writ petition. 2. The contention before this Court is that in 1976, the appellant somehow managed and arranged for himself three increments each standing at Rs. 16.00 . These increments were arranged and subsequently paid to the petitioner from 14/04/1976 (reference Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit in the writ petition) on a wrong declaration that he had passed a departmental examination. It is contended that firstly this employee was not entitled to three increments and is further contended that if these increments had been granted then at the time when he was promoted in 1985 the increment was to be stopped on promotion. But this employee continued with three increments from 1976. At the time when the learned Judge passed the order on the petition and directed that the post retirement benefit be paid and that also with interest, these increments were quantified to Rs. 5,247.60.00 . The Bihar State Electricity Board gave 90% of the provisional pension and the rest became the subject matter of adjustment. Of this Rs. 5,247.60.00 which had been deducted the learned Judge ordered that it be paid with 9% interest and the pension which was in arrears for a period of 21 months the learned Judge directed that this be paid with 6% interest. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order of the learned Judge dated 13/12/2001 on the writ petition. 3. Several cases are pending in the High Court where during the course of service employees particularly Government servants, and of employees of statutory corporation, government corporation and statutory bodies complain of denial of promotions, increments and retirement benefits. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order of the learned Judge dated 13/12/2001 on the writ petition. 3. Several cases are pending in the High Court where during the course of service employees particularly Government servants, and of employees of statutory corporation, government corporation and statutory bodies complain of denial of promotions, increments and retirement benefits. Government departments and corporations take the defence that some of these benefits, promotions and increments are wrongful gains obtained collusively, like in the present case. These employees file writ petitions at the High Court. At the Patna High Court a special group has been carved out to take care of such cases. At the time of considering the case of defence is that there was wrongful gain in receiving increment or promotions and, thus, the pension is being withheld. 4. The net result is that the High Court is seized with a stock pile of such cases, particularly the post retirement benefits. Coming straight to the present case the issue is that three increments were given to the appellant, Jagdeo Singh. If the contention of the Bihar State Electricity Board is that the appellant managed and arranged three increments, by collusion, to which he was not entitled, it took two persons to make these arrangements. There must have been a ready party within the Board itself who was prepared to grant these increments and of course the petitioner was a recipient of it. This happened in 1976. Today the High Court is supposed to unravel and remove the mystery and certify that the appellant was not entitled to these increments and, thus, his arrears and pension be varied. The question is : who granted it to him? If the Board argues that this is a matter of accountability then it must question and put its own house in order. If at the fag end this employee is being asked to return the money received as an irregular gain, granted in 1976 then let the officer be identified who granted the sanction to pay these three increments to the appellant, Jagdeo Singh. The Board cannot look on the other side on those who have arranged for these present to be delivered to the employees, who enjoyed them for almost 25 years. The High Court cannot be involved in such matters when the Board is not absolved in such irregularities being permitted unchecked. 5. The Board cannot look on the other side on those who have arranged for these present to be delivered to the employees, who enjoyed them for almost 25 years. The High Court cannot be involved in such matters when the Board is not absolved in such irregularities being permitted unchecked. 5. When misdemeanors and irregularities have been conducted within the Board or a Government Department and one party has been let off free, it is entirely up to the Board how to adjust this amount. I may find out from the record who permitted the sanction of the three irregular increments to the employee and make adjustment from whosoever the officer may be, in service or out of service, it is pointed out to the Court that this employee, Jagdeo Singh, had given an undertaking at the time of submitting his pension papers that if there be any excess amount then the Board will be free to make adjustments. It is formally an undertaking which is signed by every employee in a Government department. This sort of undertaking is for bonafide mistakes and errors which permit marginal adjustments. If the case of the Board is that the appellant is a crook then the other who arranged for these three irregular increments be identified. The undertaking will not save the other staff in collusion who sanctioned the three increments in 1976. Today the High Court should not come to the rescue of the Board to make deductions and let the official who was, a ready party in the irregularities walk off without being questioned. Perhaps this may be a racket within the Board. 6. In the circumstances the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.